Prostatepedia

Conversations With Prostate Cancer Experts


Leave a comment

Join a clinical trial: Using PET/MRI in HIFU Planning

Dr. Timothy J. Daskivich is a urologic oncologist in the Cedars-Sinai Urology Academic Program and the director of Health Services Research for the Cedars-Sinai Department of Surgery.

Prostatepedia spoke with him about his clinical trial on using high-resolution PET/MRI in planning high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate cancer.

Join Prostatepedia Weekly for free. Or subscribe to read our monthly magazine.

Why did you become a doctor? What was it about medicine that drew you in?

Dr. Daskivich: I always knew that I loved science, but I wanted to do something where I could impact individual lives. I’m also a people person, and I love to get to know people and hear their stories. Being a doctor is a kind of mash-up of those two interests: my love of science and discovery with the human aspect of being a doctor.

Now I’m a physician-scientist: I do the science part of my work half of my time, and for the other half, I see patients and operate. They’re related but very different, and I love the dichotomy.

I’m sure one informs the other.

Dr. Daskivich: Absolutely. I actually have a good example of how my research connects these two parts of my job. I have a Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development K08 Award from National Cancer Institute that aims to improve communication between doctors and patients about life expectancy after a new diagnosis of prostate, kidney, or bladder cancer. This study involves recording treatment consultation consultations between doctors and patients to better understand what is being said about life expectancy in these discussions. We follow this with a structured interview with the patient to ask about what worked well or what could have been improved. Based on what we observe, we’re planning to create a patient-centered approach to discussing life expectancy. This study allows me to talk to the patients, hear their stories, and then bring their perspective back to physicians to try to improve communication. It’s a lot of fun, and one aspect informs the other.

Can you talk to us a bit about the context of the clinical trial you’re running?

Dr. Daskivich: Our clinical trial involves testing whether fluciclovine PET-MRI can improve localization of tumors within the prostate (compared to standard multiparametric MRI) prior to focal treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU).

To help you understand why this trial is important, let me first give you some background. For many years, we used surgery or radiation to treat the entire prostate for patients with prostate cancer. We either removed or radiated the entire gland. That was the standard of care for a long time. But the problem with whole-gland treatment is that it incurs a lot of side effects—erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, or irritative urinary symptoms—by damaging structures near the prostate like the nerves that supply the erectile function of the penis and the bladder neck.

In order to minimize those side effects, there’s been a movement to consider focally treating the prostate cancer lesions and leaving the rest of the prostate intact. That had been a pipe dream for a long time, until recently when the technology has become available to identify and focally treat prostate cancer lesions in a minimally invasive and highly precise way. It’s actually a confluence of three technologies that have made focal therapy possible.

The first of these technologies is high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). HIFU directs high-intensity ultrasound waves to a point in space, and that point is destroyed. It’s a little bit like using a magnifying glass to harness the rays of the sun to burn a leaf. When you pass your hand between the magnifying glass and the leaf, you don’t get burned. With HIFU, you can place a probe into the rectum, direct the ultrasound waves to destroy an area in the prostate and destroy it while leaving all the intervening tissue unharmed.

The second technology is MRI, which we use to localize cancers within the prostate. MRI has about 80% sensitivity for detection of high-grade cancers within the prostate. And not only can it detect them, but it can define exactly where they are.

The third technology is MRI-ultrasound fusion. This technology allows us to overlay MRI images—including the location of tumors—onto ultrasound images in real time. This is important since we use ultrasound as our primary imaging modality to direct HIFU to the areas of the prostate that are affected by cancer. Now with MR/US-fusion technology, we can superimpose the location of tumors as identified by MRI directly onto the ultrasound when we’re targeting our HIFU beam.

All of these technologies—MRI of the prostate to identify location of tumors, ultrasound fusion to target the tumors in real time, and HIFU to precisely transmit energy to these areas—have made focal therapy of the prostate possible.

Our study acknowledges the fact that focal treatment of prostate cancer is entirely dependent on imaging. If I’m going to take out the entire prostate gland, there is a huge safety net for error. If we thought that the cancer was on the right side, but lo and behold, there were a few lesions on the left, it’s no problem–we’ve taken the whole thing out, so we’ve removed the unseen cancer. However, now that we’re doing focal therapy, that safety net is gone. If you fail to detect a prostate cancer prior to doing a focal treatment and therefore don’t treat that area, then you haven’t fully treated the cancer.

In this study, we’re using high-resolution PET/MRI to precisely identify prostate cancers during HIFU planning. Before HIFU, all the patients on the trial get a high-resolution MRI (six-fold improved resolution compared with standard MRI) and fluciclovine PET-MRI to map out where prostate cancers may be located. We then biopsy all lesions that are positive on the PET or on the high-resolution MRI using ultrasound fusion technology. Then based on that map, we do focal HIFU on all areas that are positive for cancer.

With improved cancer mapping using high-resolution PET/MRI, we hope to be better at treating the cancer completely. By maximizing our imaging, we hope to maximize the cure rate.

What sort of follow up are you doing after the focal therapy?

Dr. Daskivich: At six months after focal therapy with HIFU, patients get another prostate MRI and targeted biopsy in both the treated and untreated zones. We also follow with serial PSA levels.

Do patients need to come to you for the initial imaging and HIFU?

Dr. Daskivich: Patients come to us already having been diagnosed with prostate cancer on biopsy. We then do the high-resolution PET MRI and repeat targeted biopsy based on the advanced imaging at Cedars Sinai. Patients who remain eligible and interested in HIFU go on to get this treatment at Cedars Sinai.

Do they need to come back to your center for the follow-up MRI and PSA testing, or can they do that at a remote location?

Dr. Daskivich: Yes, patients do need to do follow up MRI and targeted prostate biopsy at 6 months at Cedars Sinai. PSA testing can be done at a remote location if necessary.

Is there are any fee to patients for participating in the trial?

Dr. Daskivich: All procedures that are not standard-of-care are funded by the trial. This includes the high-resolution and PET components of the MRI. Importantly, though, the HIFU is an out-of-pocket cost for participants, since it is a standard of care procedure and we’re studying the imaging and not the HIFU procedure itself.

Is all the follow-up covered?

Dr. Daskivich: Most often, insurers cover follow up imaging for prostate cancer treated with HIFU as standard of care.

Any particular eligibility criteria you’d like to highlight?

Dr. Daskivich: Participants on this trial must either have clinically localized, unilateral high-grade (Gleason 7 or higher) or high-volume Gleason 6 (>50% of cores involved) disease. Those with unilateral high-grade disease can also have contra-lateral low-grade (Gleason 6) disease, but they cannot have bilateral high-grade disease. PSA must also be less than 20.

We specifically designed the study to exclude patients with low-volume Gleason 6 disease (<50% percent of the cores involved). This is because active surveillance is a better treatment option for most patients with low-volume, low-risk prostate cancer.

Any final thoughts or advice for patients?

Dr. Daskivich: I was initially a skeptic about focal therapy, and that’s why I wrote this trial. I wanted to document all of the outcomes in a very systematic way and convince myself that it was effective. Having used focal therapy with HIFU for some time now, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how effective and minimally morbid it is, at least in the short term. Cancer control has been excellent in the short term and the side effect profile is much better than traditional therapies like surgery or radiation. HIFU is done as outpatient treatment as well, so it is also convenient. It’s honestly quite refreshing to have a prostate cancer therapy that doesn’t come along with the traditional baggage of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

Which can be debilitating.

Dr. Daskivich: Which can be very debilitating, even if it is experienced for only a short period of time. If the long-term cancer control of focal therapies for prostate cancer like HIFU turn out to be durable, then it could change the standard-of-care for unilateral high-grade disease. Time will tell.

Not a member? Join us.

 

 


Leave a comment

Join A Prostate Cancer Imaging Clinical Trial

Dr. Peter Choyke, Director of the Molecular Imaging Program at the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute, is keenly interested in translating molecular imaging methods like MRI and PET into practice.

Prostatepedia spoke with him about his clinical trial on 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging in high-risk prostate cancer.

Why did you become a doctor?

Dr. Peter Choyke: I was always interested in science. I came from a family of scientists. It just seemed that medical problems were the kind of problems that I needed to do work on. A lot of the problems in physics and chemistry had been solved, but in biology and medicine we really needed a lot more effort. I wanted to devote my life to that.

Can you explain the thinking behind your clinical trial on 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging in high-risk prostate cancer?

Dr. Choyke: Prostate cancer imaging has been very limited. We’ve only had access to CT and bone scans, both of which had limited sensitivity for picking up prostate cancer. In the beginning of the 2000s, a number of new PET agents—or Positronemission tomography labeled agents—emerged. We started looking at them as they became available. They showed better and better sensitivity and specificity.

About three or four years ago, we accessed a first generation PSMA-targeted PET agent named F-18 DCFBC in collaboration with the person who invented this whole field, Dr. Martin Pomper at Johns Hopkins University.

We formed a collaboration and scanned 135 patients in an earlier protocol. We showed that even though this was a first generation PSMA agent, it was really promising and had much better sensitivity and specificity for prostate cancer than any other agent we had ever looked at.

Then Dr. Pomper, who is partly an imaging specialist and partly a chemist, further developed the compound into F-18 DCFPYL. This is the agent we’re now using in this trial.

F-18 DCFPYL has probably 10 times better sensitivity than the first-generation agent because of the higher affinity of the agent for PSMA and because of lower background. We started using that in the end of the summer of 2017 in a trial looking at high-risk primary cancer and recurrent disease.

If a man enrolls in this trial, what can he expect to happen from beginning to end?

Dr. Choyke: First of all, it’s important to talk about who qualifies for the trial. We have two arms.

In one arm, we’ll have men with high risk cancers, meaning they’re at high risk for metastatic disease or spread outside the prostate. Such men would come to our center and get the scan. They’d also get an MRI of their prostate, because we always correlate the findings of the DCFPyL scan with MRI to anatomically locate where the uptake is occurring. The anatomy is very complex in the low pelvis.

With the MRI in hand, the patient would get an injection of a small amount of radioactivity in the form of this F-18 DCFPyL. About an hour later, they go onto the scanner and simply lie flat for about 20 to 30 minutes until the entire body is scanned from head to toe. Then we’ll report the findings back to his physician.

Part of the reason why this is a research study is that we try very hard to correlate the findings that we see with biopsy specimens. This is still a research agent. We don’t know for sure that the areas of uptake are actually cancer. We can only confirm that with biopsy. We insist that patients undergo biopsy of PSMA-positive lesions as seen on the scan.

We say insist, though of course it may not be medically safe for some people to undergo a biopsy. It may not be feasible. There are exceptions. It’s not an absolute rule. We certainly want to get as much histologic correlation as possible. Otherwise, we could end up in a situation where we think we’re seeing disease, but we are in fact not. That would be very misleading and could possibly cause more harm than good. It’s very important at this stage of development to get as much information as possible.

In the second arm of this trial, we are scanning patients who have already undergone radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy and who now have a rising PSA, which indicates recurrent disease. We would do the scan in the same way as in the first arm with correlation of the MRI. Again, we’re trying to get as much histologic confirmation as possible.

Join us to read the rest of Dr. Choyke’s comments about his clinical trial.

 

 


Leave a comment

3 or Fewer Prostate Cancer Mets

Dr. Piet Ost is a radiation oncologist at Ghent University in Belgium. His work focuses on post-surgery radiation therapy and metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer, or a cancer recurrence with three or fewer metastases.

Prostatepedia spoke with him about treating men with so few metastases after treatment.

Can you define oligometastatic prostate cancer?

Dr. Ost: First of all, if your doctor talks about oligometastatic disease, I think it’s very important to ask them what they mean by that? When we look through literature, there are several definitions used.

Some people use oligometastatic while others use oligorecurrence, synchronous metastases, or low volume metastases. Many of these probably mean the same, but there is no uniform definition.

In 1995, Hellman and Weichselbaum first defined oligometastases as metastases limited in number and location. These tumors have not developed the full capacity for metastatic growth. It could be an issue with the metastases—or the seed—or it could be an issue with the soil—the environment in which the metastases started to grow. That’s the biological definition.

This is not very useful as a clinician. What is limited? Is that a certain number? If you look through literature, many clinicians define it as up to three metastatic lesions with no more than two different organs involved. That is probably the most used definition, but there are alternatives. Some say that it’s only one metastasis while others say it’s as many as five or even 10 in case of brain metastases. Some say there has to be a certain amount of time between primary diagnosis and the occurrence of metastasis.

There’s a lot of confusion throughout the literature. If you read an article, you have to look at their definition. When doctors talk to each other, and when patients talk to each other, they all use the word oligometastatic, but it might be that they’re talking about a different disease.

Is there any sort of restriction on where those metastases are located—for example, in only the pelvic area?

Dr. Ost: At this time, I don’t think so. It’s a biological phenotype. We care less where the metastasis occurs. For example, we have had patients with unique lung mets at the time of recurrence where we remove those lung mets, and then these patients remain disease-free for many months or even years.

Normally, when you have a patient with lung mets, those are visceral mets, and their prognosis is supposed to be very poor no matter what. There appears to be a subset of patients with a limited number of metastases, even visceral metastases, who still benefit from removing or irradiating the metastases. We have several of those cases documented already. It’s not about the location. It’s something about the biology, and that is the big problem at this time.

Currently, when we propose a certain oligometastatic or metastasis directed therapy to a patient, we don’t know if the metastases we see and treat are the only ones there, or if three months after we remove or eradiate them, there will be 20 new metastases. We don’t know that at the start. This shows us that imaging is still far from perfect and sometimes we only see the tip of the iceberg.

When we look at the distribution or pattern of metastases in recurrent prostate cancer with Choline PET/CT and PSMA PET/CT imaging, we see that, after receiving prior prostate cancer treatment, the majority of patients relapse first in the lymph nodes.

That is mainly in the pelvic lymph nodes. If we look at all the patients that we screen for now, 70% have nodal recurrences, 25% have bone metastases, and 5% have visceral mets. If we look at all of those recurrences, two thirds of those relapses are what we call oligometastatic, meaning up to three metastatic spots. We don’t believe that there is a true limitation on the organs. How it evolves is actually a fingerprint of the disease.

When you start, you don’t know whether it’s a true oligomet. We cannot predict at this time how the disease will evolve.

How do you normally treat oligomets? With radiation or surgery? How do you decide which is most appropriate?

Dr. Ost: We still counsel our patients on the standard options. For patients with upfront metastatic disease, the landscape has changed dramatically where we now introduce Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) plus Taxotere (docetaxel) or ADT plus Zytiga (abiraterone) as a standard of care.

We still do not know if these options are helpful in treating the primary tumor and its mets with metastatic-directed therapy. In situations with upfront oligometastatic disease, we counsel our patients that the standard of care is systemic drugs while the addition of any metastatic-directed therapy is one big question mark. We do not advise it outside clinical trial.

The situation is a bit different in the recurrent setting. In the recurrent setting, there’s a gray zone. For example, the older data said that starting ADT for a PSA relapse following primary therapies—just starting ADT—is not advised; it’s better to wait and see and do a delayed ADT at the time of symptomatic progression.

Now with the very sensitive imaging, we see mets earlier at PSA relapse. What should we do with these? Do we still say the standard of care is wait and see, ADT, or something else? Because new imaging created this gray zone, all of a sudden we saw a boom in these oligometastatic patients, so we decided to do a clinical trial in this setting.

In our paper published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), we randomized our patients to wait and see. One group had surveillance while starting ADT, and the other group had surgery or radiotherapy to the mets followed by surveillance. In that study, we found that surgery or radiotherapy is better at postponing further progression to polymetastatic disease rather than just observing patients.

We have an alternative now in counseling patients: metastaticdirected therapy with either surgery or radiotherapy. We know that it’s very safe, because we did not see any grade 2 or higher toxicity, which is a positive thing to tell men with prostate cancer. We can offer you something without a whole lot of toxicity. We still have to tell you this was a Phase II trial. The endpoint was time to progression.

I’m still not sure that giving metastatic-directed therapy will change your disease in the long run, that it will make you live any longer compared with immediate ADT or surveillance. It’s still too early to tell. We try to counsel our patients with these different options.

Join us to read the rest of Dr. Ost’s comments. (Subscribers can read the conversation in their March issue of Prostatepedia.)


Leave a comment

Dr. Piet Ost: Why Medicine?

Dr. Piet Ost is a radiation oncologist at Ghent University in Belgium. His work focuses on post-surgery radiation therapy and metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer, or a cancer recurrence with three or fewer metastases.

Prostatepedia spoke with him about what drew him to medicine.

Why did you become a doctor?

Dr. Piet Ost: It was a bit by coincidence. I planned to be an airline pilot, but due to some medical issues with my eyes, I was not allowed to fly. I’ve always had a big interest in anything scientifically sound where you can start with science and build up from there. I found evidence-based medicine interesting from the beginning. So I started an alternate plan to become a doctor. I enrolled in medical school and became more interested in getting patients involved in the science, in applying evidence-based medicine. How can we do that? Where are the big gaps in science?

In medical school, I realized that there are so many unanswered questions that patients ask on a daily basis. You just have to tell them what we know now, but that there are many things that we still do not know or fully understand. That communication process has helped me a lot in talking to patients. They helped me grow in this process once I graduated.

Subscribe to read Dr. Ost’s comments on oligometastatic prostate cancer.


Leave a comment

Dr. Eric Rohren: Why Radiology?

Dr. Eric Rohren is the chair of the department of radiology at Baylor College of Medicine.

Prostatepedia spoke with him about the path that led him to radiology.

Subscribe to read Dr. Rohren’s comments on radium therapy + imaging.

Why did you become a doctor?

Dr. Eric Rohren: I actually tried my best not to become a doctor initially. My father was a doctor. I grew up in the shadow of the Mayo Clinic up in Minnesota. I knew I was interested in science, but for a long time, I thought I wanted to pursue a career as a research scientist and not a physician.

As I made my way through college and looked at what I really enjoyed and what a career would look like, I wanted to focus on patient care and do things that impacted people. I looked for a career that could combine the science that I enjoyed with the ability to directly interact with people, to hopefully make their lives better. I came full circle, landing back in a career in medicine.

How did you end up in radiology and nuclear medicine?

Dr. Rohren: That was also a little bit indirect. Most medical students aren’t introduced to radiology until very late in their medical training.

A lot of people make the decision to do medicine or surgery well ahead of time, but radiology is often a latecomer. Nuclear medicine is even more so. It’s a subspecialty of imaging, its own medical specialty, but it can also be considered a part of radiology. Medical students often make it through their entire medical training without learning about nuclear medicine at all.

I was fortunate to have a mentor in the radiology department at the Mayo Clinic who taught me what he loved about radiology and how impactful it was on patient care. He got me further plugged in to nuclear medicine.

As I went into my residency and pursued it further, I decided that the science that I loved and the ability to do new things were most focused in radiology, and particularly in nuclear medicine. That’s the career I ended up with.

Many people assume radiology is just imaging. Is that the case? Where does it branch off into nuclear medicine? What kinds of therapies would a radiologist administer?

Dr. Rohren: A big part of being a radiologist is reading images. We also oversee the acquiring of the images, so we monitor the acquisition of the scans and the technologist performing the scans. Many of the people reading this article will have had X-rays, CTs, and MRIs. While technologists and nurses take them into the scanner and get them positioned, ultimately, the radiologists are the ones who oversee the program and make sure that the scans are acquired in the right way. They’re responsible for patient safety, the patient’s experience, and things like that.

At the back end, once the scan is complete, radiologists interpret the scans and look for the findings that may be used to guide medical decisions. Whereas many radiologists can go through their day and not see a patient, they do see the patient’s images. However, there are components of radiology that are directly related to therapy and directly patient-facing.

In interventional radiology, we do biopsies and endovascular procedures, catheter-based procedures, embolizations, administering treatment, and things like that. In women’s imaging such as mammography and breast cancer screenings, those radiologists spend a lot of their time talking to patients and counseling them about their diagnosis and procedures.

One area of radiology where we do meet with a patient face-to-face and interview or talk with them is in nuclear medicine. In that role, we act as “real doctors,” where we walk in, interview the patient, review their labs, go over the plan, do a consent process if it’s for a therapy that has some risks associated with it, and then we administer the therapy directly there in the clinic. When I serve in that role, I feel much more like a patient-facing physician than I do a traditional radiologist. It’s one of the most enjoyable things about it for me.

People tend not to be familiar with specialists until they need them. They might not really understand what you do until they’re at the point where they need your services.

Dr. Rohren: Generally, that is the impression, that the radiologist sits in a dark room, reads scans, and that’s the end of it. The national societies for radiology really encourage us to interface with patients and physicians to make our presence known. Radiologists need to do a better job of that. We have a critical role to play in the management of patients and the diseases that they’re dealing with, so the more we can be out there, share our professional knowledge, act as consultants, and act as physicians for the patients, that’s a positive thing.

Not a member? Join us to read the remainder of the conversation.


Leave a comment

Advanced Imaging + Prostate Cancer

Dr. Phillip Koo is Division Chief of Diagnostic Imaging at the Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Prostatepedia spoke with him about advanced imaging + recurrent prostate cancer.

Not a member? Join us to read more about recurrent prostate cancer.

Do you have any advice for men considering advanced imaging for prostate cancer?

Dr. Koo: We’ve been talking about better imaging tools for prostate cancer for years. When it comes to other cancers, we moved forward a great deal when FDG PET/CT became available. With prostate cancer, we’ve been stuck with CT and bone scans since the 1970s. They’re great tools. I don’t want to devalue what they’ve done for our patients since then, but we knew we could do better. Urologists and oncologists knew patients had metastatic disease, but our imaging tools limited detection.

We have new tools available to us in 2018. There is no question that costs are going to be higher, but that shouldn’t stop us from exploring and pushing the envelope. The whole purpose is to improve overall survival and treatment for our patients. An ounce of diagnosis could be a pound of cure. If we could identify disease sooner, identify the right patient for these exams, and use them at the right time, then we could probably create treatment plans more appropriate for patients with better outcomes. It’s something that I firmly believe. There is so much potential here.

When radiology is practiced in a vacuum, it’s not as powerful as when it’s integrated into patient histories and treatment plans. Radiology is a very powerful tool. But we often think of it as a commodity, something that does not have any distinguishing value. That is a huge under-estimation of radiology.

When performed correctly in a multidisciplinary setting, with access to the medical record and physicians who are taking care of the patient, radiology unlocks information that can really impact care for patients with prostate cancer. And we are currently only scratching the surface. This will change as analytic tools continue to analyze bigger data sets that include imaging and clinical data. If a urologist determines that their patient needs imaging, they’re going to write a request for imaging that describes what type of test they want and why they need it.

Not a member? Join us to read more about recurrent prostate cancer.

 

Patients often go to the closest facility. Convenience is important, but when it comes to certain tests or exams, I urge patients to seek out subspecialized radiology experts and facilities with the experience and expertise in the performance and


Leave a comment

Imaging + Prostate Cancer Recurrence

Dr. Phillip Koo is Division Chief of Diagnostic Imaging at the Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Prostatepedia spoke with him about imaging recurrent prostate cancer.

Not a member? Join us to read more about recurrent prostate cancer.

Prostatepedi:Some imaging occurs when men are first diagnosed. When, after treatment, do they encounter these newer imaging techniques? After a high PSA reading? Or just a part of routine follow-up?

Dr. Philip Koo: That’s a really tough question because imaging has a role throughout the continuum of care for any prostate cancer patient. Screening currently isn’t done with imaging, but there are a lot of research studies looking at it.

Prostate MRI is most often used for the detection of local disease. Oftentimes, patients with a rising PSA and a negative standard biopsy might get an MRI or an MRI-guided biopsy.

Bone scans and CT scans are used to help detect metastatic disease. There are many different scenarios, but usually after patients are diagnosed with cancer, most will visit radiology if there is a suspicion for metastatic disease. If we refer back to the RADAR 1 paper published in 2014 by Dr. Dave Crawford in Urology (see Urology 2014 Mar; 83(3): 664-9), we talk about imaging patients at initial diagnosis and imaging those who are intermediate or high-risk. In those patients, we recommended a bone scan and a CT scan.

Patients who are biochemically recurrent may also be imaged. Again, MRI will often be used to look for locally recurrent disease. Bone scans and CT scans are used to look for metastatic disease.

What about some of the newer imaging techniques?

Dr. Koo: The newer techniques are exciting. In both the patient community and the scientific community, we’ve heard a lot about these tools over the past decade. They weren’t widely available, especially in the United States. These newer imaging tools are simply better, which is why there is so much excitement. They will pick up more sites of disease at lower PSA levels.

When we do detect sites of disease, they’re more specific. Our confidence that these sites are actually disease is higher than our confidence when we’re using traditional bone and CT scans. These tests perform at a higher level compared to standard imaging.

Another benefit to these new tools is that in one single exam, we’ll be able to detect soft tissue and bony disease.

How do these newer techniques change treatment? If you can pick up the disease at a lower PSA is that going to change how a doctor treats a man?

Dr. Koo: Yes. We will be able to detect disease sooner. Currently, these newer imaging techniques are used mostly in patients with biochemical recurrence. When a patient has biochemical recurrence and we see the PSA rise, our standard imaging techniques are often not good enough to detect metastatic disease. The problem is that the radiation oncologist or the urologist needs to decide how they want to treat the patient.

Using these newer tools, we can provide the urologist or radiation oncologist with better information about whether or not the disease has spread at the time of biochemical recurrence. If it has not, and the urologist can perform salvage cryotherapy or a radiation oncologist does salvage radiotherapy, we could potentially cure the patient.

Really?

Dr. Koo: You’re hitting the disease before it spreads, so theoretically yes. These newe imaging techniques do better, but we really need to prove why this is important and how this impacts care. The answers to these questions will solidify the utility and value of these imaging techniques for prostate cancer patients.

If a patient gets the Gallium-68 PSMA or Axumin scans will his local urologist or oncologist know what to do with that information?

Dr. Koo: Maybe. The problem is that all of this sounds great: we have a tool that can detect disease sooner, better, and more accurately. But then the more important question is what to do with that information and does it impact outcomes. If we don’t know, then what is the value of that imaging tool? We operate under the assumption that earlier detection is always better, but we’re learning that in a lot of diseases that is not always true.

We could be over-diagnosing and over-treating certain diseases. Whether it’s imaging, urology, radiation oncology, or oncology, it really is a team effort because we all bring something unique to the table. We really need to work together to make sure we come up with the best plan and the best answers.

Join us to read the rest of Dr. Koo’s comments on imaging recurrent prostate cancer.